Body-worn cameras put police evidence beyond doubt

It's hard to argue with video evidence from a camera that records everything a police officer sees – and it keeps the cops in line too

WHEN a young man threatened to kill a police officer's children and bite off his nose in A&E at a hospital in Hampshire, UK, earlier this year, there was a chance his behaviour would go unpunished. After all, it was just his word against the officer's – except that the policeman was wearing a video camera that captured every word. The man was successfully prosecuted for threatening behaviour.

Welcome to the new era of policing and surveillance. The rise of body-worn video (BWV) is making life easier for police officers – but it could make sure they toe the line too. The camera used as evidence in this case was one of 450 that Hampshire police is now rolling out to its officers.

Footage from another BWV camera was also crucial when villagers reported a serial drink-driver in their midst, says Stephen Goodier, an inspector with Hampshire Constabulary. In court, the suspect claimed he had never been asked to take a breathalyser test, and so could not have refused to take one, as an officer alleged. But BWV footage clearly showed him refusing to take the test. "He was banned from driving," Goodier says. "When it is one person's word against that of another before a judge and jury, the body-worn camera is an independent witness."

On 13 October, Staffordshire Police decided to equip 530 officers with BWV cameras from UK firm Reveal Media after they'd been rolled out in Sweden, Germany, Denmark and France. And in the US, police departments coast-to-coast are acquiring BWV cameras from stun-gun maker Taser International, plus CopTrax of Plano, Texas, as well as Panasonic.

CopTrax just tweaked its BWV camera software to work with Google Glass so it records what the officer actually sees, rather than a view from a chest, lapel or collar cam. On 13 September police in Byron, Georgia, made the first arrest on record – a parole violator pulled over for speeding – using CopTrax's Google Glass system, which streamed officer-viewpoint video of the arrest live back to police HQ. "A chest-mounted camera does not always give as good a perspective on a scene. It can be facing the wrong way when the officer is talking to someone," says CopTrax video manager Bill Switzer.

However it is done, these on-officer cameras are generating first-person videos of interactions with the public that are already having a profound effect on policing. Confronted with footage of their actions, defendants are pleading guilty earlier, says Alasdair Field, CEO of Reveal Media. And complaints from the public about police brutality or misuse of their power can be settled faster and with less bureaucracy.

People in a brawl often calm down suddenly when told they are being videoed, says Gavin McMillan, also a chief inspector in Hampshire. Indeed, a police department in Rialto, California, reported in April that the use of force against its officers declined 59 per cent when they began wearing cameras. "Our cameras have a front-facing screen to maximise this effect," says Field.

Fuelling the move towards such wearable surveillance are the tiny cameras and high-power batteries developed for smartphones. BWV cameras have existed in the past but they have been impractical because they always needed large extra batteries. Recent uptake has a generational element, too: "The younger generation of police officers grew up in the internet video age and are comfortable recording digital video for sites like YouTube, Vine and Facebook," says Steve Tuttle, vice-president of Taser International.

Officers may be happy but what about the average civilian? How might they gain or lose from this? Surprisingly, perhaps, the American Civil Liberties Union has given qualified backing to BWV because of its "potential to serve as a check against the abuse of police power". But ACLU has two major provisos: first, recording must be "always on" so that officers record complete interactions with a suspect – and do not edit "on the fly" by recording only what backs their version of events. Second, ACLU says the back-office data storage system for video evidence must be secure, accessible to lawyers and defendants – and yet also automatically delete recordings of no interest after 30 days.

"In reality 'always on' recording would become totally unmanageable and the technology could not do it," says Goodier. So his officers click the video on when they approach a suspect and switch it off afterwards. Reveal Media's software flags up officers who are switching recordings on and off too often, allowing checks to be made on them. And the CopTrax system starts recording automatically when a squad car's siren and blue lights are turned on, says Switzer.

ACLU wants research to keep tabs on how BWV can be used and abused and, in fact, the criminal justice department at the University of Portsmouth, UK, has just started such a study.

Goodier agrees that secure, shareable video data storage is key. "We need to be able to share footage easily with anyone in the justice system that needs it," he says. "We need a policing version of YouTube."

This article appeared in print under the headline "Police, camera, action"

Chase them down with Google Glass

THE body-worn video camera from CopTrax of Plano, Texas, is an extension of its squad car dashcam system that takes in video wirelessly from a smartphone mounted on an officer's body armour (see main story). But smartphone specifications change too often for the software to keep up, says CopTrax's Bill Switzer – so they have turned to Google's wearable computer, Glass.

They have tested Glass in conjunction with police handguns and assault rifles and the headset does not obscure aim. The live GPS feed from Glass will help commanders work out where officers are when pursuing suspects – as well as show events as they unfold from the police officer's perspective.

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.